Skip to content

· Public charity

Energy Share of Montana Inc

Montanans helping neighbors faced with energy emergencies maintaining their self-reliance.

$2.8M
Granted FY2025still arriving
12
Grants FY2025still arriving
1
States reached
$835k
Largest
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Public Safety & Disaster$13MHuman Services$3.4MEnvironment$509kHousing & Shelter$123k
02FY2025 · 12 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $52k
  • $50k–250k7 grants · $853k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.9M
$139,103
Median grant
1
States reached
$16M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
District VII HRDC$834,521
Opportunities Inc$680,807
District XI HRDC$344,822
Rocky Mountain Development$213,265
Action Inc$189,442
Action for Eastern Montana$139,103
District IX HRDC$110,944
District VI HRDC$81,874
Community Action Partnership$67,011
District IV HRDC$51,120
Habitat for Humanity$26,487
Habitat for Humanity$25,217
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $3.1M) land where the poverty rate runs at 13%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 76% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $111k → 10%ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $283k → 12%District VI HRDC: $82k → 12%DISTRICT XII HRDC: $156k → 16%District IV HRDC: $72k → 18%District IX HRDC: $111k → 10%ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $189k → 12%District VI HRDC: $65k → 12%DISTRICT XII HRDC: $114k → 16%DISTRICT IV HRDC: $59k → 18%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $106k → 10%ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $166k → 12%District VI HRDC: $55k → 12%DISTRICT IV HRDC: $57k → 18%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $95k → 10%Action for Eastern Montana: $139k → 12%DISTRICT VI HRDC: $45k → 12%District IV HRDC: $51k → 18%District IX HRDC: $84k → 10%ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $135k → 12%DISTRICT VI HRDC: $42k → 12%DISTRICT IV HRDC: $43k → 18%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $74k → 10%Action for Eastern Montana: $115k → 12%DISTRICT VI HRDC: $38k → 12%DISTRICT IV HRDC: $40k → 18%District IX HRDC: $61k → 10%ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $90k → 12%DISTRICT VI HRDC: $37k → 12%DISTRICT IV HRDC: $30k → 18%District IX HRDC: $46k → 10%Action for Eastern Montana: $70k → 12%DISTRICT VI HRDC: $32k → 12%District IV HRDC: $30k → 18%DISTRICT IX HRDC: $44k → 10%Action for Eastern Montana: $60k → 12%District VI HRDC: $30k → 12%District IV HRDC: $21k → 18%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$17M · 12 repeat orgs$14k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +20% since the first grant, against -6% for those funded once.

12 repeat relationships: 12 still active in FY2025, 0 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
1

Total granted

$17M
$14k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+20%
-6%

Still filing today

100%
100%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
Human ServicesCommunity ImprovementOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • D7
    DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.4M · revenue +9%
  • OI
    OPPORTUNITIES INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $4.4M · revenue +44%
  • DX
    DISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $1.9M · revenue +30%

Funded once

  • HF
    Habitat for Humanity International
    one grant, 2024 · $14k · revenue -6%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Ozark Action Inc

To coordinate and provide services for people with needs so they can improve their quality of life.

Human Services
2
South Central Community Action Partnership Inc

To provide a wide range of services in an effort to help improve the quality of life for people with an economic disadvantage.

—
3
Habitat for Humanity Missoula Inc

Habitat for humanity of missoula is a nonprofit, ecumenical, christian housing ministry dedicated to the elimination of poverty housing in our community and throughout the world.

—
4
Energy Share of Montana Inc

Montanans helping neighbors faced with energy emergencies maintaining their self-reliance. Energy Share of Montana provides energy assistance and help for Montana families for emergency heating needs through bill assistance, furnace and…

Housing & Shelter
5
Carbon County Action Committee for Human Services

To provide energy conservation measures, home services to elderly and handicapped and emergency energy assistance.

Community Improvement
6
Community Action of Southern Kentucky Inc

We team with Community partners to provide human services with dignity and respect, empowering people in Southern Kentucky to achieve stability and economic security.

—
7
Habitat for Humanity of North Idaho

Habitat for humanity of north idaho works in partnership with the community to build decent, energy efficient houses for qualified families in kootenai county.

—
8
Northwest Community Action Inc

Our mission is to stimulate a focusing of all available resources upon the goal of enabling area low-income families and individuals of all ages to attain skills, knowledge, and motivations, and secure the opportunities needed for them to…

Human Services
9
Habitat Community Housing Development Inc

Development of affordable housing

—
10
Henderson County & Thermal Belt Habitat for Humanity

Seeking to put God's love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope.

—
11
Mid-Columbia Community Action Council

To alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in Wasco, Hood River, and Sherman Counties. The purpose of MCCAC shall be the promotion of self sufficiency in families and individuals within the low income economic ranges in the three…

—
12
Community Action Partnership Huntsvillemadison & Limestone Counties

Community services to provide assistance to low-income residents of Huntsville, Madison and Limestone Counties

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is District 7 Human Resources Development Council Inc; the most unlike its peers is Habitat for Humanity International. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

13 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
13/13
Grantees still filing
9/13
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $4,374,692 · Human ServicesDISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INCOPPORTUNITIES INC: $4,373,445 · Human ServicesOPPORTUNITIES INCACTION INC: $1,340,395 · Human ServicesACTION INCACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $1,246,378 · Human ServicesACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANAHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $731,933 · Human ServicesHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INCNORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT: $623,067 · Human Services+2 more: $830,080 · Human Services+2 moreDISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC: $1,892,935 · OtherDISTRICT XI H…+3 more: $123,479 · Other+3 moreROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,371,257 · Community ImprovementROCKY MOU…
Human Services$13,519,990Other$2,016,414Community Improvement$1,371,257

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetDISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC: $4,374,692 over 9y, 9.5% of budgetOPPORTUNITIES INC: $4,373,445 over 9y, 5.5% of budgetDISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC: $1,892,935 over 9y, 4.7% of budgetROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $1,371,257 over 9y, 2.5% of budgetACTION INC: $1,340,395 over 9y, 3.5% of budgetACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA: $1,246,378 over 9y, 5.0% of budgetHUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC: $731,933 over 9y, 0.7% of budgetNORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT: $623,067 over 9y, 2.7% of budgetCENTRAL MONTANA DISTRICT SIX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: $426,880 over 9y, 6.0% of budgetDISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCE DEV COUNCIL: $403,200 over 9y, 1.6% of budgetHabitat for Humanity of Southwest Montana: $56,116 over 2y, 12% of budgetHELENA AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: $53,087 over 2y, 2.0% of budgetHabitat for Humanity International: $14,276 over 1y, 1.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds DISTRICT 7 HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds OPPORTUNITIES INC ↗
  • Who funds DISTRICT XI HUMAN RESOURCE COUNCIL INC ↗
  • Who funds ROCKY MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds ACTION INC ↗
  • Who funds ACTION FOR EASTERN MONTANA ↗
  • Who funds HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF DISTRICT IX INC ↗
  • Who funds NORTHWEST MONTANA HUMAN RESOURCES INC DBA COMMUNITY ACTION PARNERSHIP NW MT ↗
  • Who funds CENTRAL MONTANA DISTRICT SIX RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds DISTRICT IV HUMAN RESOURCE DEV COUNCIL ↗
  • Who funds Habitat for Humanity of Southwest Montana ↗
  • Who funds HELENA AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ↗
  • Who funds Habitat for Humanity International ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Montana Homeownership Network IncMT17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 6 of 6Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Montana Homeownership Network Inc · Town Pump Charitable Foundation · Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation · Montana Healthcare Foundation · Montana Community Foundation Inc · First Interstate BancSystem Foundation Inc · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Energy Share of Montana Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Energy Share of Montana Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2025
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 13 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Energy Share of Montana’s filings →

    More from the funding graph